The Revision Protocol 2.2.4-2

Purpose

The practice audit (2.2.4-1) identifies norms that need to change. The revision protocol specifies how they change — who can propose a revision, what evidence is required, how the team decides, and what happens if the revision fails. Without this protocol, revision is either impossible (calcification) or chaotic (whim-driven change).

The Protocol

Step 1 — Proposal

Any team member may propose a revision to a standing norm. The proposal must include:

• The norm to be revised: Named concretely.
• The evidence that the norm is no longer serving its purpose: Drawn from the practice audit, the error-friendly retro, the update ledger, or direct observation.
• The proposed change: Stated concretely — what would replace the current norm, or what modification would be made.
• The expected outcome: What improvement does the proposer expect, and how would the team measure it?

The proposal is documented and shared with the team before discussion. This prevents the dynamics of real-time persuasion from overriding the quality of the evidence.

Step 2 — Steelman Both Sides

Before the team discusses the proposal, both the existing norm and the proposed revision receive steelman treatment. The team articulates the strongest case for keeping the current norm and the strongest case for the revision. This prevents the proposal from being evaluated against a weakened version of the status quo — or the status quo from being defended against a weakened version of the proposal.

Step 3 — Decision

The team decides using its pre-established decision mechanism. The mechanism should be documented in the team's charter or operating agreement and should be known to all members before any specific proposal is under discussion. Common mechanisms include majority vote, consensus with time-bound deliberation, and delegated authority (a named person decides after hearing the team's input).

The decision is recorded with its reasoning — not just the outcome, but the evidence considered and the rationale for the choice. This is the team-level expression of public reason, which becomes an organizational discipline in 2.2.6.

Step 4 — Implementation and Tracking

If the revision is approved, it is implemented with a trial period — a defined interval (two weeks, one sprint, one quarter) after which the team evaluates whether the revision produced the expected outcome. The trial period is recorded in the update ledger (2.2.3-2).

If the revision fails — if the updated norm produces worse outcomes than the original — the team reverts and records the result. Reversion is not failure. It is the method working as designed: the team tried something, measured the result, and corrected course. This is fallibilism in operational form.

Step 5 — Reversion or Confirmation

At the end of the trial period, the team reviews the evidence and either confirms the revision (it becomes the new standing norm) or reverts to the previous norm. In either case, the decision and its reasoning are recorded in the update ledger. The confirmed norm then enters the practice audit cycle like any other standing norm — subject to the same three questions at the next audit.

What the Protocol Prevents

Without a revision protocol, two failure modes dominate.

Calcification: No mechanism exists for changing norms, so norms persist by default regardless of evidence. Teams that experience this failure mode often describe themselves as "stable" or "disciplined," but the stability is maintained by the absence of a revision pathway, not by the strength of the norms themselves.

Whim-driven change: Norms change based on the preferences of whoever has the most social power, with no evidence requirement and no tracking. Teams that experience this failure mode often describe themselves as "agile" or "responsive," but the responsiveness is governed by personality, not by method.

The revision protocol occupies the space between these two failures: structured change, based on evidence, with tracking and reversion capability. It is the team-level expression of OO's central claim that method — not authority, not tradition, not personal preference — determines what holds.